Before chairing a United Nations Security Council meeting September 26, President Donald Trump took to Twitter.

President Trump expressed admonition that “China is actually placing propaganda ads in the Des Moines Register and other papers made to look like news,” tweeting about a four-page supplement in the Des Moines Register purchased by China Daily. China Daily is a Chinese government-run media outlet that has spent more than $15.7 million on U.S. influence since 2017, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Foreign Lobby Watch data calculated from spending reported in Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) disclosures.

In remarks later that day before the General Assembly of the United Nations, where China’s foreign minister was also present, President Trump took that reproach step further. “We don’t want them to meddle or interfere in our upcoming election,” President Trump said of China, claiming that the United States has “found that China has been attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 election coming up in November against my administration.”

At a press conference after the U.N. Security Council meeting, President Trump buckled down on the claim, telling a reporter, “We have evidence. We have evidence. It will come out. I can’t tell you now, but it didn’t come out of nowhere, that I can tell you.”

The Chinese government’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, denied President Trump’s claims. “We did not and will not interfere in any country’s domestic affairs. We refuse to accept any unwarranted accusations against China,” he said while speaking before the United Nations General Assembly.

Against a backdrop of an escalating trade war between China and the United States, tensions between Beijing and Washington have continued to escalate.

A senior Trump administration official who briefed reporters on September 27 on the condition of anonymity echoed President Trump’s stance that “China is actively interfering in our political system,” noting that “China has spent billions of dollars on propaganda, here and throughout the world, crowding out or even posing as independent news sources.”

By Sunday, a week after the four-page ad touting the mutual benefits of U.S.-China trade ran in the Des Moines Register, Terry Branstad — U.S. ambassador to China and the former longtime governor of Iowa — penned an opinion piece in the Des Moines Register claiming that China is “doubling down on that bullying by running propaganda ads in our own free press.’”

The Chinese Foreign Ministry defended against charges that China is interfering in U.S. elections, pointing out that many foreign governments and other entities have paid for supplements in American news publications that portray their country in a positive light.

China Daily’s history of influence

Disclosures under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) — the law that governs most foreign influence disclosure requirements — analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics show that it is not uncommon for foreign government-owned media outlets to run advertising supplements in U.S. newspapers.

China Daily has a long history of disclosures under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, dating back to 1983, according to FARA disclosures on file with the Department of Justice made available through the Center for Responsive Politics’ Foreign Lobby Watch tool.

FARA carves out an exemption for “bona fide news or journalistic activities,” but requires that at least 80 percent of the media outlet’s officers and directors are citizens of the United States and no foreign principal owns, directs, supervises, controls, subsidies, finances, or determines policies of the media outlet.

As one of the top 10 foreign principals spending on influence in the United States, China Daily has spent over $15.7 million to influence U.S. policy and public opinion since the beginning of 2017 — more than 75 percent of total spending on behalf of Chinese interests during that time period.

Last year alone, China Daily spent more than $12.6 million to influence policy and public opinion in the United States. China Daily has continued to spend millions more on U.S. influence in 2018, according to China Daily’s most recent Supplemental Statement disclosure which covers a six month period ending on April 30, 2018.

Much of that spending is attributed to printing costs or other operating expenses and facilitating of partnerships with American news outlets, according to recent FARA disclosures filed by China Daily reviewed by the Center for Responsive Politics. China Daily has routinely run supplements in American news publicans, listing supplements placed in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal in its most recent Supplemental Statement disclosure filed in compliance with FARA.

Many of the supplements placed on behalf of foreign media outlets are designed to look like regular news articles that promote the country’s interests but are required to include labels that the materials were distributed on behalf of a foreign principal.

Weeks earlier, the U.S. Justice Department ordered FARA registration by two other leading Chinese state-run media outlets that had not previously filed disclosures as foreign principals under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Xinhua News Agency and China Global Television Network (previously CCTV America)

Outside of being listed among contacts alongside other media outlets, CCTV America’s only prior foray into FARA disclosures came in 2012 when the company hired Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide for public relations work surrounding the channel’s launch in the United States. Now, the U.S. Justice Department has reportedly ordered the broadcasting network to register as a foreign agent.

Following increased scrutiny by lawmakers and government officials, a January 2018 letter sent to Attorney General Jeff Sessions by a bipartisan coalition of senators led by Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) explicitly called for an investigation into the Xinhua News Agency and China Global Television Network — months before the U.S. Justice Department reportedly ordered the outlets to register as foreign agents under FARA.

Escalating focus on foreign media

The heightened scrutiny on Chinese government-run media outlets operating in the United States comes amidst a broader U.S. government push towards stronger regulation of foreign media and a resurgence of FARA enforcement.

In March of this year, a coalition ofU.S. senators and members of Congress sent another letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling for an investigation into whether Al Jazeera should register as a foreign agent under FARA due to its ties to the Qatari government.

The U.S. Justice Department has already ordered multiple outlets to register as foreign agents to be in compliance with FARA. In November 2017, a U.S. production company responded to a U.S. Department of Justice request to register as a foreign agent of RIA Novosti, the Russian government entity that administers global broadcasts of Russian state-funded television network Russia Today (RT).

The content producer and broadcasting partner of Sputnik, another Russia government-backed media outlet, also registered as foreign agents following pressure from the U.S. Justice Department.

FARA disclosures filed by foreign agents registered to act on behalf of RT and Sputnik note that each organization “respectfully disagrees that FARA should apply.”

After T&R Productions— the U.S. production company that produces RT content — registered as a foreign agent, RT was stripped of its congressional press credentials. A letter from the Executive Committee of the Congressional Radio and Television Correspondents Gallery reportedly stated that the decision “was taken in response to the registration of RT’s operating company, T&R Productions.”

Russian authorities wasted no time after the move, threatening their own crackdown on international media outlets operating in Russia. In September 2018, Russian State Duma’s information policy committee head Leonid Levin announced that Russia is gearing up to adopt the new “foreign agent” media outlet law during the fall session.

A new U.S. rule requiring foreign media outlets to submit reports to the Federal Communications Commission disclosing their relationships with foreign principals was announced by the FCC on September 4, 2018, pursuant to the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA) signed into law by President Trump on August 13. The rule imposes additional reporting requirements on foreign media outlets that would already be considered foreign agents under FARA and produce or distribute videos for U.S. consumers on platforms with multiple channels of video programming — like Internet-based services, satellite, cable or other television broadcasts — that must be met by an initial deadline of October 12, 2018.

]]>Trump’s state in the eye of the Unionhttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/trump-1st-state-of-union/
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:38:18 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=24853What's to come in President Trump’s first State of Union? Expect the phrase “America First.” The name Gorsuch. And something will be “great.”

Expect the phrase “America First.” The name Gorsuch. And something will be “great.”

President Donald Trump’s first State of Union is expected to take the shape of a recent op-ed in which he outlined first-year success with second-year goals.

Reports suggest Trump’s speech will center on five topics: the economy, immigration, infrastructure, trade and defense.

Here’s a primer on what to expect and the special interests who’ll be listening closely.

THE ECONOMY

Trump told reporters Monday the speech would touch on the “great success with the markets and with the tax cut” as well as bipartisan immigration reform and trade. The president won’t be shy about discussing a healthy economy.

The stock market’s up, unemployment’s down and Fortune 500 companies are doling out employee bonuses from newfound profits of last month’s tax cut that double as good press for Trump and congressional Republicans.

Nearly 1,400 organizations lobbied on behalf of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the most lobbied bill of 2017, according to a CRP analysis. Lobbyists working on issues related to taxes also donated nearly $10 million to members of Congress in the first nine months of the year. (Total donations will almost certainly rise in year-end filings due this week).

The Business Roundtable, a trade association representing CEOs, spent a record $27 million on lobbying last year, ranking third overall in annual lobbying spending. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, another major proponent of the bill, spent $82 million.

An unexpected beneficiary of the tax plan in the financial sector were private equity and investment firms, which managed to escape Trump’s campaign pledge to close the so-called carried interest loophole that hedge funds and private equity firms with the help of last-minute lobbying, The New York Times reported.

Private equity and investment firms donated a record $118 million on behalf of federal candidates and committees in the 2016 cycle and spent more than $9 million last year on lobbying, the most since 2014.

Trump may link the healthy economy to deregulation: In his January op-ed, Trump repeated his plus-one, minus-two approach to government regulations, a calculus he’s applied liberally, from consumer protections to environmental safety.

“Not only did we meet that goal,” according to the op-ed attributed to Trump, “we far exceeded it, eliminating 22 regulatory actions for every new regulation.”

Many of the deregulations have benefited the energy and natural resources sector, from oil and gas to mining. The most high-profile changes included lifting restrictions on coal production aimed at reducing carbon emissions and pollution, approving constructions of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling.

In the 2016 cycle, the energy and natural resources sector made $171 million in political contributions and spent $314 million on lobbying in 2017. The oil and gas industry also gave about $7 million for Trump’s 2017 inaugural ceremonies.

Trump has hinted at loosening additional regulations for the financial sector, specifically targeting Dodd-Frank. In January, Trump told reporters he supported loosening the consumer lending regulations put in place by the 2010 law and had previously broached the idea with Wall Street, The Hill reported.

Trump’s small-government, corporate-centric approach has attracted the attention of labor and public-sector unions.

Labor contributions in federal elections last cycle reached a record $215 million, 88 percent of which benefited Democratic candidates. The National Active & Retired Federal Employees Association, a trade group representing federal employees, spent a record $340,000 lobbying for its public employees as well.

IMMIGRATION

Trump during a meeting with lawmakers on immigration policy. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

No debate is dividing Washington more than immigration, specifically what to do with the expiring Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, an Obama-era policy that Trump has said he supports — with strings attached.

Last week, the Trump administration released a four-point “framework” for legislation that combined immigration reform and border security.

Top of the list was border security and a request for a “$25 billion trust fund for the border wall system” as well the hiring of additional border guards, immigration judges, prosecutors, and other immigration-related personnel. Second on the list was DACA legislation.

Last year, 613 organizations — from corporations and universities, to trade associations and single-issue groups — lobbied on immigration, which was the highest total since 2013.

No organization spent more time lobbying on immigration last year than Microsoft, an employer of high-skilled immigrant workers. Google was second on the list. Other tech companies that listed immigration in multiple disclosure forms included Dropbox, Facebook, Intel and Cisco. Executives from over 100 major U.S. corporations, including tech firms, recently called on Congress to pass permanent bipartisan legislation to protect DACA recipients.

FWD.us, a pro-DACA coalition of tech companies, spent $1 million last year lobbying on behalf of permanent DACA protection. The National Council of La Raza, one of the most active immigration reform groups, spent over $370,000, its highest total since 2010.

Not all immigration lobbying was pro-reform, however. NumbersUSA has spent about $500,000 each of the past three years — and nearly $6 million over the past decade — opposing policies sympathetic to immigration. Federation for American Immigration Reform, a similar group, increased its lobbying spending to its highest level in eight years in 2017.

DEFENSE

Trump’s talk on foreign policy likely will include a nod to the military’s progress against the Islamic State group, tough words for North Korea, and perhaps a warning about the dangers of mimicking Europe’s open-door policy to asylum-seekers.

Expect a pitch for more defense spending as well.

According to The Washington Post, Trump’s upcoming budget proposal includes a request for $716 billion for the Defense Department, or a 13 percent increase from its $634 billion in 2017 spending. The funding is intended to “boost training” and for “modernizing the military’s aging weapons systems” based on a recommendation by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, The Post reported.

Nearly 800 lobbyists representing over 200 clients in the defense sector spent $127 million lobbying the federal government last year and made nearly $30 million in contributions during the 2016 cycle. Of the $29.7 million in donations, 41 percent came from just four defense contractors — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.

Lockheed and Boeing each donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee and was two of only seven companies that gave at least seven figures for the January 2017 festivities. Northrop donated $100,000.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Whether $200 billion in proposed infrastructure spending could pass a Congress juggling a projected $1.5 trillion budget deficit over the next decade is debatable. But Trump will reportedly make a case tonight.

In his “Contract with the American Voter” released before the election, Trump said he planned to pursue $1 trillion in infrastructure investments through tax incentives and public-private partnerships.

A draft of the plan, as reported by Bloomberg and others, would allocate $200 billion in federal funds to spur more than $1 trillion in spending by states, localities and the private sector.

Jamar Penny/UpSplash

The American Road & Transportation Builders Association and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials are skeptical the plan would pass a divided Congress, much less fully address the country’s deeply neglected roads, bridges and other infrastructure, however.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AT&T, the American Federation of Government Employees, American Petroleum Institute and Southern Company had the highest number of lobbyists working on infrastructure issues last year.

TRADE

The Trump administration last week announced new tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels.

The reason? The imports were a “substantial cause of serious injury to domestic manufacturers,” according to a statement from U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee.

]]>Tobacco, rum and other interests lobby on Cuba as restrictions easehttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/02/tobacco-rum-and-other-interests-lobby-on-cuba-as-restrictions-ease/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/02/tobacco-rum-and-other-interests-lobby-on-cuba-as-restrictions-ease/#respondMon, 08 Feb 2016 21:30:44 +0000http://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=12741It may seem a country long in love with cigars has little need for Swedish Snus dipping tobacco. But Swedish Match, by its…

Actor Don Cheadle checks out a Cuban cigar during taping of his “House of Lies” series in Havana last month. (AP Photo/Desmond Boylan)

It may seem a country long in love with cigars has little need for Swedish Snus dipping tobacco. But Swedish Match, by its own measure the third-largest manufacturer of the tobacco pouches in the U.S., doesn’t see it that way: Since 2011, the company has lobbied Congress more heavily than any other on trade with Cuba.

Last week, the Department of Treasury announced it would further ease certain trade and travel restrictions, removing financing restrictions for authorized exports and granting export licenses for a wider range of products.

Those licenses will be issued case-by-case for items that “meet the needs of the Cuban people,” according to Treasury’s press release. Education is a high priority, which is good news for the nine different educational organizations have lobbied Congress on Cuba since 2011. They include NAFSA: Association of International Educators, which has over 10,000 members from 3,500 institutions, according to its website. It has spent almost $1 million dollars on federal lobbying since 2011, not all of which was dedicated to Cuba issues.

None of these groups, however, has been as loud as those who make the specialized chewing tobacco. Swedish Match has filed 54 different reports mentioning Cuba via five different lobbyists since 2011, though none of them indicated Treasury was a target of its efforts, only Congress; a spokesman for Swedish Match told OpenSecrets Blog in an email that the company is not looking for an export license to Cuba. Still, in 2015, the company lobbied on four different bills that sought to end the trade embargo with Cuba. None of those measures made it out of committee.

Bacardi, however, has mentioned Cuba on 47 of its lobbying reports since 2011, CRP data show — the highest number after Swedish Match; it indicated lobbying Treasury on 18 of those reports.

Every year, Bacardi has danced between trying to end the embargo and reclaiming its patent rights, which were effectively seized by the Cuban government when it nationalized the company’s operations after Communist revolutionaries seized power in 1959.

Not all of the 115 groups lobbying on issues related to Cuba since 2011 are seeking licenses. Some of them are religious or human rights organizations, for example, and don’t sell products. However, many of the groups that have lobbied, including trade groups or umbrella organizations representing a variety of smaller entities, are looking for licenses and now it appears likely that dozens could be approved.

Clif Burns, an attorney specializing in export control and economic sanctions, said that in his view, lobbying had little to do with obtaining export licenses.

“I think there were a number of factors that led to the sectors designated for liberalization of the embargo,” Burns told OpenSecrets Blog in an email. “Chief among them was to build on existing exceptions and to add new sectors based on considerations of fostering civil rights, free flow of information, and private entrepreneurship.”

Whether that’s the case or not, lobbying on Cuba has ramped up. The U.S. and Cuba moved to begin restoring ties at the end of 2014. The number of lobbying reports mentioning Cuba correspondingly soared, from 74 in 2014 to 261 last year. And the number of lobbying firms working on Cuba-related provisions has gone from 43 to 81 from 2011 to 2015.

There’s more to be done, especially in areas such as travel. Twelve companies or trade groups representing cruise lines, hotels and other tourism organizations have lobbied on Cuba since 2011, and there are surely more to come. Direct tourism from the United States to Cuba is not yet allowed but families, religious organizations, and researchers from the United States are among the groups allowed to freely travel.

So will Cubans soon be taking swigs of Bacardi before fattening their lower lips with pouches of snus? Hard to say, but there’s no shortage of effort going into making it happen.

The proposal to fast track trade agreements made by the Obama administration and overseas partners in the Trans-Pacific Partnership — said to be the biggest trade agreement in history, surpassing NAFTA — has created a dynamic that’s contrary to the way things usually go in Washington these days: Republicans are pushing for the authorization alongside the president, while some in the administration’s own party are pushing back.

And some of the biggest potential beneficiaries of a trade deal (like pharmaceutical companies and other business interests) have made significant investments in the GOP. Opposing groups that lean Democratic, including labor groups like the AFL-CIO and environmental advocacy organizations, are leveraging their political giving, too. In fact, the AFL-CIO announced in March that it was suspending contributions from its PAC to federal candidates until the issue is resolved.

The point of fast tracking legislation is to show good faith in negotiations with other countries. The president can work out a deal with foreign partners more easily if the partners trust that the agreement won’t be picked apart piece-by-piece when it goes before Congress for approval. With fast track, Congress gets a straight up-or-down vote — lawmakers can only approve the deal as a whole or reject it altogether.

“The legislation that I introduced last year… actually enhances Congress’s role in trade negotiations by giving specific direction to the administration as to what they need to deliver to get an agreement through Congress,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in January, referring to a previous iteration of the legislation.

Those opposed say the all-or-nothing approach is risky. Negotiations are being kept too secret, they maintain, noting that the few leaked provisions favor corporations and the wealthy and will damage Obama’s environmental record. For instance, documents released by Wikileaks and reported in the New York Times revealed a provision that would set up an independent arbitration panel to allow multinational corporations to call into question the laws of sovereign nations. Conflicts between countries and corporations would be brought before the panel — composed of industry lawyers –rather than resolved by the courts of the countries involved. Others have raised concerns with provisions discovered in other leaks that indicate the deal would provide increased patent protection for pharmaceutical companies, delaying cheaper generic drugs from entering U.S. markets.

Fast track legislation was proposed in the last Congress but failed to pass after much lobbying by a long list of interests, including trade associations, business interests, and labor unions.

The mighty U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has the biggest lobbying budget of any organization year after year, strongly supports the fast track bill. Spending $124 million to weigh in on hundreds of bills last year, it referenced the legislation in its lobbying reports more than any other group.

Many organizations tied for second in terms of references to the bill, including advocates on both sides of the fast track debate like the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. But those lobbying against it have a much more modest lobbying footprint. The Sierra Club, for instance, claimed $360,000 in lobbying expenses in 2014, and the AFL-CIO spent $5.2 million.

The Chamber has a long history of favoring Republicans in Congress, a preference that has only grown more stark. Of the $264,875 it gave to candidates in 2014, just a single contribution of $1,250 went to a Democrat — all the rest went to the GOP. Its outside spending arm pumped $33.4 million of the $35.5 million it spent overall into helping Republican candidates.

The pharmaceutical industry, which gave $10.9 million to candidates in the most recent cycle, split its giving somewhat more equitably, with $4.7 million going to Dems and $6.2 to Republicans. Nearly $6.7 million of its overall donations went to members of the Senate Finance Committee, which must clear the legislation before it goes to a full vote.

The AFL-CIO‘s political spending leans strongly Democratic, though the divide isn’t quite as stark as it is with the Chamber. The labor umbrella group gave $436,000 to Democratic candidates last cycle and $135,000 to Republicans. All but $480 of its $1.1 million in outside spending, though, went to help Dems. Environmental interests gave nearly $6 million to candidates in 2014, $5.3 million of which went to Democrats.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/04/trans-pacific-partnership-deal-has-mighty-lobbying-power-on-its-side/feed/0Generics Score Victory in India, but Battle Over Patents Rages Onhttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/generics-score-victory-in-india/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/generics-score-victory-in-india/#respondTue, 02 Apr 2013 14:46:53 +0000Generic drugmakers win one over the brand pharmaceutical manufacturers in the Indian Supreme Court, but lobbying reports show that the battle over patent protection rages on in the U.S., too.

]]>Score one yesterday for generic drug makers in the never-ending global battle over patent protection for name-brand pharmaceuticals.

In a ruling by the Supreme Court in India, pharmaceutical giant Novartis AG lost the right to keep sales of its cancer drug Gleevec free from generic competition. A year’s supply of Gleevec, which is extremely effective against certain types of leukemia, can cost $70,000. Generic versions bring the tab down to about $2,500. India is the world’s biggest source of low-cost generic medications.

While the developing world is a major concern for the pharmaceutical industry — presenting both potentially huge markets and threats to patent protections — drugmakers spend significant resources worrying about their patents in the U.S., as well. Last year, Novartis spent $7.4 million on its Washington lobbying presence, which swung into action on such bills as the Patent Reform Act (S.23) and the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act (S.27).

Patent, as well as trade, issues were among those most frequently lobbied in 2012 by Teva, Watson and other top makers of generic drugs as well, according to Center for Responsive Politics data. And trade was the foremost concern of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, though the trade group only spent about $2 million on lobbying last year, a drop in the bucket compared to PhRMA’s outlays.

But the hotspot for the battle between generic and brand in Washington right now may be the Supreme Court. Last week, the justices heard arguments about whether it’s okay for brand name pharmaceutical makers to pay generic manufacturers to keep their cheaper drugs off the market for a set period of time — a longtime practice sometimes known as “pay to delay,” which the Federal Trade Commission has said is anticompetitive. As far as we know, the high Court can’t be lobbied, at least not in the traditional sense.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/generics-score-victory-in-india/feed/0Capital Eye Opener, Dec. 11: Banks in Potentially Crippling Lawsuits, A Cultural Misunderstanding Over Wal-Mart Lobbying, and the Death Star Petitionhttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/12/capital-eye-opener-dec-11/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/12/capital-eye-opener-dec-11/#respondTue, 11 Dec 2012 09:15:00 +0000Some of the nation's biggest banks are defendants in a whole new round of lawsuits over subprime mortgages, with potential liability in the hundreds of billions. WalMart is accused of illegal lobbying in India, though it all seems to be a misunderstanding.

BANKERS FACING LAWYERS: Some of the country’s most powerful banks are facing a new batch of lawsuits for selling questionable mortgage-backed securities that caved during the financial crisis. The federal government is among the plaintiffs.

According to a New York Times report, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Citigroup, among others, have been sued by a full spectrum of plaintiffs in connection with more than $1 trillion worth of mortgage securities. Investors have gone to court seeking to have the banks buy back the bum securities, while prosecutors are accusing the banks of fraud and SEC regulators claim they deceived investors about the failed instruments.

Should the dominant forces on Wall Street lose all of the litigation in a worst case scenario, it could cost them as much as $300 billion. One of the major pending lawsuits is a $200 billion case filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency that argues the banks tricked mortgage financiers into buying faulty securities.

So far, banks have settled only a few cases against them — already paying out billions of dollars to repurchase bad securities — and costs for future settlements and judgments are expected to overshadow what the institutions have spent thus far, according to the Times report.

IS WAL-MART IN TROUBLE? In the U.S., millions of dollars are spent every year lobbying the government on various issues. But in India, lobbying is illegal. That’s a headache for Wal-Mart, which appears to be entangled in a misunderstanding about what it did, and especially where.

The Indian government is looking to allow foreign supermarkets, such as Wal-Mart, to establish themselves in the country, and the movement recently received support from Parliament.

Separately, Wal-Mart’s reports filed with the U.S. Senate show that it spent about $25 million on lobbying since 2008. In the most recent report, Wal-Mart said its lobbying activities included “Discussions related to [foreign direct investment] in India.” But the retail giant’s perfectly legal lobbying it the U.S. has been twisted into allegations that the store is bribing Indian officials over the supermarket’s presence in the India, according to The Washington Post.

Jagdambika Pal, an Indian National Congress leader, tried to straighten out the confusion by saying that Wal-Mart had legally lobbied U.S. senators and had not illegally lobbied Indian politicians, the Post reports. But lawmaker Ravi Shankar Prasad of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party said, “lobbying is just a benign form of bribery.”

A NEW HOPE: A feature on the White House website — “We the People: Your Voice of Government,” at petitions.whitehouse.gov — provides constituents with an opportunity to create petitions and collect signatures with the hope of surpassing a signature threshold so the Obama administration will review the issue.

Created on Nov. 14, the petition is halfway to its threshold before being sent to the administration. As of Tuesday morning, the petition had more than 16,500 signatures, and it needs less than 8,500 more by Dec. 14 for the proposal to be considered.

“By focusing our defense resources into a space-superiority platform and weapon system such as a Death Star, the government can spur job creation in the fields of construction, engineering, space exploration, and more, and strengthen our national defense,” the petition reads.